🚨⚖️COURT ALERT: A hearing will be held this morning in North Carolina regarding challenges to the state's new redistricting maps.
Here's what you need to know about the lawsuits🧵👇
There are two lawsuits involved in this hearing. Both challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. The second lawsuit also challenges the General Assembly maps and includes a racial gerrymandering claim.
Despite the fact that North Carolina is split almost 50/50 Republican and Democrat in state-wide elections, the new congressional map would overwhelming consolidate GOP power in the Tar Heel state with:
🖊10 GOP districts
🖊3 Democratic districts
🖊1 competitive district
Facts about Harper:
PLAINTIFFS: North Carolina voters
DEFENDANTS: Lawmakers who drew the map and the State Board of Elections
CLAIM: The 2021 congressional map is an extreme Republican gerrymander that violates multiple provisions of the NC state constitution.
The plaintiffs in Harper v. Hall also sued NC over the 2016 congressional map (democracydocket.com/cases/north-ca…). The 2016 map had a 10-3 Republican to Democrat split and the court found that to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
The Harper plaintiffs argue that the 2021 map is almost exactly like the 2016 map that was struck down and is, again, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
Facts about NCLCV:
PLAINTIFFS: NCLCV & NC voters
DEFENDANTS: Lawmakers who drew the map, the state of North Carolina & the State Board of Elections
CLAIM: The 2021 congressional & legislative maps are racial and partisan gerrymanders that violate the NC state constitution.
What's interesting in the NCLCV case is that many of the plaintiffs are mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists.
Using "computational redistricting," plaintiffs claim that algorithms prove that the maps are intentionally & severely gerrymandered and that these same tools can "fix the constitutional flaws while adhering to traditional, neutral redistricting principles and state law."
In the hearing this morning, both Harper and NCLCV are asking the court to grant preliminary injunctions against the maps they are challenging. Preliminary injunctions temporarily stop or block a law from being enacted as legal challenges continue.
Harper is asking for an injunction on just the congressional map.
NCLCV is asking for injunctions on both congressional and state House and Senate maps.
Injunctions are usually granted if plaintiffs can prove that the law or provision they're challenging will cause harm if it's allowed to continue. In these cases, the plaintiffs argue that voters’ rights will be severely harmed if the maps remain in place for 2022 elections.
If granted, the preliminary injunctions would prohibit elections from being held using the challenged maps while litigation continues. The injunctions also ask the court to create remedial maps that could be used in the meantime to ensure voters have fair representation.
If the preliminary injunctions are not granted, the lawsuits are NOT over. Litigation will continue, but North Carolina would be allowed to use the challenged maps in elections as the process plays out in court.
The hearing is not a trial, meaning that the judge will not be ruling on if the maps are constitutional. The hearing is simply about if the maps will be blocked from use or not while the lawsuits continue.
It's possible that the judge could make a decision on the injunctions during the hearing and announce it — this is known as "ruling from the bench." The judge could also wait to release their decision later on in a written order. So, we may or may not know the decision today.
Watch this space for updates from the hearing and subscribe to the Democracy Docket newsletter to get major redistricting news sent straight to your inbox.👇 democracydocket.com/subscribe
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The court consolidated the two cases, Harper v. Hall and North Carolina League of Conservation Voters (NCLCV) v. Hall, into one case under the name NCLCV v. Hall.
NCLCV: "In all three maps, so long as you have results within 7 points...you are going to have baked in majorities for the incumbent [Republican] party in every chamber."
I don't know about you, but we’re tracking 22 active lawsuits about new voter suppression bills passed so far this year. And it feels like a perfect morning to take a look at the cases and what laws they're challenging👇🧵
On March 3, 2020, Hervis Rogers stepped in line to vote in the 2020 primary at Texas Southern University, a historically Black college in Houston, Texas. After 6 hours of waiting, Rogers cast his ballot at about 1:00 AM.
Rogers was arrested for voting in the 2018 general elections and the 2020 Democratic primaries while on parole for a felony conviction. Rogers had been on parole since 2004 and his parole ended in June 2020. In Texas, people with felony convictions/on parole cannot vote.
Texas Attorney General chose to prosecute Rogers, claiming that Rogers “knowingly” voted while ineligible.
Rogers said he was unaware that he was ineligible to vote while on parole.
Texas Senate State Affairs Committee is considering 10 amendments to #SB1. After amendments are considered, the committee will vote on advancing the bill to the Senate floor. #txlege#SuppressionSession
8 amendments have been passed so far. Most amendments add clarification or make small edits to provisions in #SB1. Amendment 9 introduced by Sen. Hall (R) has been pulled due to ongoing changes to state election code. Amendment 9 will be considered on the floor. #txlege
Further clarification is needed by the Secretary of State's Office on how Amendment 9 would impact elections and the monetary cost to counties before it will be considered. #txlege
J. KAGAN, dissenting: "So the Court decides this Voting Rights Act case at a perilous moment for the Nation’s commitment to equal citizenship. It decides this case in an era of voting-rights retrenchment—when too many States and localities are restricting..." 1/4
"access to voting in ways that will predictably deprive members of minority groups of equal access to the ballot box. If 'any racial discrimination in voting is too much,' as the Shelby County Court recited, then the Act still has much to do." 2/4
"Or more precisely, the fraction of the Act remaining—the Act as diminished by the Court’s hand. Congress never meant for Section 2 to bear all of the weight of the Act’s commitments..." 3/4